EASO and EFAD Position Statement on Medical Nutrition Therapy for the Management of Overweight and Obesity in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This position statement on medical nutrition therapy in the management of overweight or obesity in children and adolescents was prepared by an expert committee convened by the European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) and developed in collaboration with the European Federation of the Associations of Dietitians (EFAD). METHODS: It is based on the best evidence available from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials on child and adolescent overweight and obesity treatment and other relevant peer-reviewed literature. RESULTS: Multicomponent behavioural interventions are generally considered to be the gold standard treatment for children and adolescents living with obesity. The evidence presented in this position statement confirms that dietary interventions can effectively improve adiposity-related outcomes. Dietary strategies should focus on the reduction of total energy intake through promotion of food-based guidelines that target modification of usual eating patterns and behaviours. These should target increasing intakes of nutrient-rich foods with a lower energy density, specifically vegetables and fruits, and a reduction in intakes of energy-dense nutrient-poor foods and beverages. In addition, higher intensity, longer duration treatments, delivered by interventionists with specialized dietetic-related skills and co-designed with families, are associated with greater treatment effects. DISCUSSION: Such interventions should be resourced adequately so that they can be implemented in a range of settings and in different formats, including digital or online delivery, to enhance accessibility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".